Introduction

Let mm denote Lebesgue measure on R\mathbb{R}. A set A⊆RA \subseteq\mathbb{R} is measure universal if every Lebesgue-measurable set of positive measure contains a nontrivial affine copy

x+sA={x+sa:a∈A},x∈R,s∈R∖{0}.x+sA=\{x+sa:a\in A\}, \qquad x\in\mathbb{R},\quad s\in\mathbb{R}\setminus\{0\}.

The Erdős similarity conjecture [5] asserts that no infinite set is measure universal. We prove its geometric-progression case. For q∈(0,1)q\in(0,1), write

Gq={qn:n∈N, n≥1}.G_q=\{q^n:n\in\mathbb{N},\ n\ge1\}.

Theorem 1.1. For every q∈(0,1)q\in(0,1) and η∈(0,1)\eta\in(0,1), there is a compact set Eq,η⊆[0,1]E_{q,\eta}\subseteq[0,1] with m(Eq,η)>1−ηm(E_{q,\eta})>1-\eta such that

for every x∈R and s∈R∖{0},x+sqn∉Eq,η for some integer n≥1.\text{for every }x\in\mathbb{R}\text{ and }s\in\mathbb{R}\setminus\{0\},\quad x+sq^n\notin E_{q,\eta}\text{ for some integer }n\ge1.

The avoiding set may depend on qq. In particular, taking q=1/2q=1/2 gives a compact set of arbitrarily large measure in [0,1][0,1] avoiding every signed affine copy of the dyadic sequence. The theorem treats all geometric ratios, while the conjecture for arbitrary infinite sets is a separate question.

Every finite pattern is measure universal. Indeed, if FF is finite and AA is measurable with finite positive measure, continuity of translations in L1L^1 gives

m(⋂a∈F(A−sa))⟶m(A)>0(s→0).m\left(\bigcap_{a\in F}(A-sa)\right)\longrightarrow m(A)>0 \qquad(s\to0).

For an arbitrary positive-measure set, apply this observation to a bounded subset of positive measure. The conjecture asks whether this property always fails for infinite patterns.

Falconer [6] and Eigen [4] proved nonuniversality for positive decreasing sequences an→0a_n \to0 with an+1/an→1a_{n+1}/a_n \to1. Humke and Laczkovich [8] developed a finite covering characterization and further criteria in terms of relative gaps. Kolountzakis [10] gave a probabilistic criterion using large finite subsets with sufficiently large normalized minimum gap. In the translation-invariant form of Chlebík [2], a bounded infinite set is nonuniversal if it contains finite subsets a1>⋯>ama_1 > \cdots> a_m, of arbitrarily large cardinality, for which

−log⁡(min⁡i<m(ai−ai+1)a1−am)=o(m).-\log\left(\frac{\min_{i<m}(a_i-a_{i+1})}{a_1-a_m}\right)=o(m).

Geometric progressions do not satisfy this criterion. For distinct powers of qq, we have am−1≤qm−2a1a_{m-1} \le q^{m-2}a_1 and a1−am≥(1−q)a1a_1-a_m \ge(1-q)a_1. Their normalized minimum gap is therefore at most qm−2/(1−q)q^{m-2}/(1-q), whose negative logarithm cannot be sublinear in mm.

Additive structure supplies another family of results. Bourgain [1] proved that the sum of three infinite sets is nonuniversal. Kolountzakis [10] treated certain double sums, including G1/2+G1/2G_{1/2}+G_{1/2}. Mora Cuellar, Iosevich, Kulkarni, Rojas Aravena and Yavicoli [12] proved that the sum or difference of a geometric null sequence and any infinite set is nonuniversal. Avoiding such a larger pattern does not imply avoidance of the single geometric progression in Theorem eq:1.1.

Other results concern different classes of patterns or notions of largeness. Iosevich, Kulkarni, Mora Cuéllar, Rojas Aravena and Yavicoli [9] prove nonuniversality for sets supporting a probability measure whose Fourier transform tends to zero at infinity. Such a measure is atomless, so the hypothesis excludes countable sets [9]. Cruz, Lai and Pramanik [3] construct sets of Hausdorff dimension one avoiding certain null sequences together with their limit point; the subsets establishing that dimension have Lebesgue measure zero. In a different direction, the theorem of Feng, Lai and Xiong [7] implies that every GqG_q embeds into every measurable set of positive measure by a bi-Lipschitz map. The restriction to affine maps is therefore substantive.

The proof below belongs to the probabilistic approach of Kolountzakis [10]. Random cells, fixed-center scale discretization, and integration of exceptional-center probabilities also appear in Chlebík [2] and Kolountzakis–Papageorgiou [11]; the latter paper treats unbounded sequences. Solymosi [13] and Tom [14] report incomplete dyadic constructions based on random cells; Tom also considers nested dyadic intervals and tests independent of the dilation. Our contribution is the finite routing construction and its local control of the scale count. We explain that mechanism next and give a self-contained proof.

The proof mechanism

We construct the open complement of the avoiding set. The intermediate goal is an open, 1-periodic set of arbitrarily small density that meets x+tGqx+tG_q for every x∈Rx \in\mathbb{R} and every t∈[1,2]t \in[1,2]. A summable union of its dilations and reflections then handles every nonzero scale; Section 2 gives this reduction. The remaining proof uses only finite probability spaces and elementary measure theory.

For a fixed center and a fixed scale, many independent random cell tests make a missed copy unlikely. The difficulty is to control all scales at once. Recording every possible change at the finest grid of a large construction can cost more than the failure probability can afford. We arrange the tests on a finite ordered tree so that each group of tests uses only the grids on one edge and in its child subtree. Other parts of the tree may use much finer grids without increasing the scale count for that group.

Each point is routed to a leaf by independent binary tables evaluated at its grid cells. A node chooses the first child whose table returns one, and chooses its last child by default if all earlier tables return zero. The leaf has a separate table whose entries equal one with a small probability pp; this final table determines membership in the random set and keeps its expected density equal to pp.

We assign a consecutive interval of sequence indices to each edge, in the order that traverses an edge before its entire child subtree. Gaps between these intervals make earlier routing decisions unchanged by the translations associated with a later interval, except at a small set of centers. Within the current interval, the translated points use distinct entries of its own table. At the first default on the center’s route, the nondefault children therefore supply many independent opportunities for a hit. Taking the tree sufficiently deep makes the probability of having no default small.

The decisive length condition makes an edge’s index interval at least as long as the following gap and its child subtree together. Every grid needed by a test from that interval then occurs within twice its length. Thus the number of scale representatives depends on the length of one interval, rather than on the resolution of the entire tree. The branching number can be chosen so that the independent-test failure probability beats this scale count.

For general qq, we retain nested dyadic grids but choose their resolutions comparable to q−b/(1−q)q^{-b}/(1-q) at index bb. This gives both the nesting needed to preserve earlier decisions and the separation needed for fresh random entries. The branching number is allowed to depend on qq. These two adjustments let the same finite routing mechanism accommodate any fixed geometric ratio.

Finally, the construction may miss copies at a small closed set of centers. An open neighborhood of those centers repairs every such copy, because x+tqnx+tq^n tends to xx. This converts the estimate for exceptional centers into a statement valid at every center. Section 3 constructs the grids and index intervals; Section 4 proves the conditional independence of the tests; and Section 5 controls all normalized scales and completes the open-neighborhood repair.

A periodic hitting set and the global deduction

Fix q∈(0,1)q \in(0,1) for the rest of the proof. For a measurable, 1-periodic set A⊆RA \subseteq\mathbb{R}, write

ρ(A)=m(A∩[0,1)).\rho(A) = m(A \cap[0,1)).

We first restrict the dilation factor to [1,2][1,2], while allowing every real center. The following is the main construction.

Proposition 2.1. For every p∈(0,1)p \in(0,1), there is an open 1-periodic set H⊆RH \subseteq\mathbb{R} with ρ(H)≤6p\rho(H) \le6p such that

for every x∈R and t∈[1,2],x+tqn∈H for some integer n≥1.(1)\text{for every } x \in\mathbb{R} \text{ and } t \in[1,2],\quad x+tq^n \in H \text{ for some integer } n \ge1. \tag*{(1)}

Sections 3–5 prove this proposition. We give its global consequence now, so that the subsequent construction has a single normalized target. The summable measure budgets allow us to use both expanding and contracting copies of the periodic set.

Proof of Theorem 1.1, assuming Proposition 2.1. For each k∈Zk \in\mathbb{Z}, put

pk=η644−∣k∣p_k = \frac{\eta}{64}4^{-|k|}

and choose HkH_k from Proposition 2.1 with p=pkp=p_k. Define

C=⋃k∈Z(2kHk∪(−2kHk)),Eq,η=[0,1]∖C.(2)C=\bigcup_{k\in\mathbb{Z}}\left(2^kH_k\cup(-2^kH_k)\right),\qquad E_{q,\eta}=[0,1]\setminus C. \tag*{(2)}

The set CC is open and symmetric under reflection, so Eq,ηE_{q,\eta} is compact. Each signed dilation ±2kHk\pm2^kH_k is periodic with period 2k2^k and has measure 2kρ(Hk)2^k\rho(H_k) in one period. If k≤0k\le0, the interval [0,1][0,1] consists of exactly 2−k2^{-k} periods. If k>0k>0, it lies inside a period interval of length 2k2^k. In both cases,

m((±2kHk)∩[0,1])≤max⁡(1,2k)ρ(Hk).m\left((\pm2^kH_k)\cap[0,1]\right)\le\max(1,2^k)\rho(H_k).

Consequently,

m(C∩[0,1])≤12∑k∈Zpkmax⁡(1,2k)=12η64(∑j≥14−j+1+∑k≥12−k)=7η16<η.(3)\begin{aligned} m(C\cap[0,1])\le12\sum_{k\in\mathbb{Z}}p_k\max(1,2^k) \\ &=\frac{12\eta}{64}\left(\sum_{j\ge1}4^{-j}+1+\sum_{k\ge1}2^{-k}\right)=\frac{7\eta}{16}<\eta. \tag*{(3)} \end{aligned}

It follows that m(Eq,η)>1−ηm(E_{q,\eta})>1-\eta.

For s>0s>0, choose k∈Zk\in\mathbb{Z} and t∈[1,2)t\in[1,2) with s=2kts=2^kt. Apply (1) to HkH_k at the center 2−kx2^{-k}x. For some n≥1n\ge1 it gives

2−kx+tqn∈Hk,hencex+sqn∈2kHk⊆C.2^{-k}x+tq^n\in H_k,\qquad\text{hence}\qquad x+sq^n\in2^kH_k\subseteq C.

For s<0s<0, apply the same conclusion to −x-x and −s>0-s>0 and reflect. Thus every nontrivial affine copy of GqG_q meets CC and is not contained in Eq,ηE_{q,\eta}.

The dyadic factors in (2) only normalize the dilation parameter. They do not change the index nn or require any algebraic relation between 22 and qq.

Grids, preorder windows, and stable centers

We now prepare the index windows used to find a hit at a normalized scale t∈[1,2]t\in[1,2]. Each edge of a finite ordered tree will carry one window. We will bound the set of centers at which translations by tqntq^n from a given window can change earlier grid keys, and show that the translated points take distinct keys at the edge’s own resolution. Throughout this section, q∈(0,1)q\in(0,1) and the integers M≥2M\ge2, d≥1d\ge1, g≥1g\ge1, and r0≥1r_0\ge1 are arbitrary and fixed.

For each integer b≥1b\ge1, put

c=41−q,Nb=2⌈log⁡2(cq−b)⌉,Γb=Nb−1Z.c=\frac{4}{1-q},\qquad N_b=2^{\left\lceil\log_2(cq^{-b})\right\rceil},\qquad\Gamma_b=N_b^{-1}\mathbb{Z}.

The periodic grid key of z∈Rz\in\mathbb{R} is Jb(z)=⌊Nb{z}⌋J_b(z)=\lfloor N_b\{z\}\rfloor, where {z}=z−⌊z⌋\{z\}=z-\lfloor z\rfloor. Thus the cells are closed on the left and open on the right, and a boundary point belongs to the cell on its right. We have

cq−b≤Nb<2cq−b.cq^{-b}\le N_b<2cq^{-b}.

All NbN_b are powers of two and are nondecreasing in bb. Consequently, if b′≥bb'\ge b, then Nb′/NbN_{b'}/N_b is an integer and

Jb(z)=⌊Jb′(z)Nb′/Nb⌋.J_b(z)=\left\lfloor\frac{J_{b'}(z)}{N_{b'}/N_b}\right\rfloor.

In particular, a finer key determines every coarser key. This nesting is the reason for retaining dyadic grids even when qq is not dyadic.

Assigning the windows

Take a complete ordered MM-ary tree of height dd, with leaves of height 0. Write P1,…,PMP_1,\ldots,P_M for the children of an internal vertex PP, and (P,i)(P,i) for the edge from PP to PiP_i. Let KK be the total number of edges. Order the edges in preorder: for each i=1,…,Mi=1,\ldots,M, list (P,i)(P,i) and then all edges in the subtree rooted at PiP_i, in the same recursive order. An edge and its child subtree therefore form a consecutive block in this list.

Assign an integer interval We=[ae,be]∩NW_e=[a_e,b_e]\cap\mathbb{N} to each edge, in preorder, leaving exactly gg unused indices between consecutive windows. All edges leaving a vertex of height hh receive a window of length rhr_h. For an edge with a nonleaf child, we make its window at least as long as the gap and the entire child subtree that follow it. To specify these lengths from the leaves upward, write σh\sigma_h for the span, including gaps, of all windows in a subtree of height hh. At height 1 there are MM windows and M−1M-1 gaps, so we set

r1=r0,σ1=Mr1+(M−1)g.r_1=r_0,\qquad\sigma_1=Mr_1+(M-1)g.

and, for 2≤h≤d2\le h\le d, choose

rh=max⁡{r0,g+σh−1}.r_h=\max\{r_0,g+\sigma_{h-1}\}.

At height h≥2h\ge2 there are MM blocks, each comprising one outgoing window, a gap, and a child subtree. Another M−1M-1 gaps separate these blocks, giving

σh=M(rh+g+σh−1)+(M−1)g.\sigma_h=M(r_h+g+\sigma_{h-1})+(M-1)g.

Choose the first starting index n0≥1n_0\ge1 so that 2qn0≤1/4\frac{2^q}{n_0}\le1/4, and place all subsequent windows with the prescribed lengths and gaps. Attach to each edge ee the grid indexed by its window endpoint beb_e, and set

N=⋃eWe.\mathcal{N}=\bigcup_e W_e.

For e=(P,i)e=(P,i), let be∗b_e^* be the largest endpoint among WeW_e and all windows in the subtree rooted at PiP_i. The recursive choice has the following useful consequence.

Lemma 3.1 (Span of an edge and its child subtree). If e=(P,i)e=(P,i) leaves a vertex of height hh, then

be∗−ae+1≤2rh.b_e^*-a_e+1\le2r_h.

Proof. If h=1h=1, the child is a leaf, so be∗=beb_e^*=b_e and the span is r1r_1. If h≥2h\ge2, preorder places the child’s subtree immediately after WeW_e, apart from one gap of length gg. The span is therefore rh+g+σh−1r_h+g+\sigma_{h-1}, which is at most 2rh2r_h by the definition of rhr_h. □\square

Figure 1 shows the block appearing in the proof. Thus the finest grid used anywhere in this block has its index at most 2rh−12r_h-1 beyond aea_e. This will control the number of grid boundaries encountered as tt varies. The gaps between windows serve a different purpose: they control the bound on the density of centers at which a translation from a later window can change an earlier key.

Schematic block attached to an edge at height $h \ge 2$

Figure 1. The block attached to an edge at height h≥2h \ge2, shown schematically. The window length is at least the length of the following gap and child-subtree span together. Thus the entire block has at most twice the window length, regardless of where it occurs in the tree. The next sibling block is outside this bound. At height 1, the child is a leaf and the block consists only of WeW_e.

Preserving earlier keys

Call x∈Rx\in\mathbb{R} stable if, for every window WeW_e other than the first, writing b′b' for the endpoint of its immediate predecessor,

(x,x+2qae]∩Γb′=∅.(x,x+2q^{a_e}]\cap\Gamma_{b'}=\varnothing.

Let S\mathcal{S} be the set of stable centers. The left endpoint is excluded because a translation to the right need not leave a grid cell when it starts on that cell’s left boundary; the right endpoint is included because reaching the next boundary does change the key.

Lemma 3.2 (Stability and earlier keys). The set S\mathcal{S} is measurable and 1-periodic, and

ρ(R∖S)≤4Kcqg+1.\rho(\mathbb{R} \setminus\mathcal{S}) \le4Kc q^{g+1}.

If x∈Sx \in\mathcal{S}, n∈Wen \in W_e, and t∈[1,2]t \in[1,2], then every edge ff preceding ee in preorder satisfies

Jbf(x+tqn)=Jbf(x).J_{b_f}(x+tq^n)=J_{b_f}(x).

Proof. For a fixed noninitial window, failure of its stability condition occurs on the union of intervals

[γ−2qae,γ),γ∈Γb′.[\gamma-2q^{a_e},\gamma), \qquad\gamma\in\Gamma_{b'}.

This is a measurable periodic set of density at most

2Nb′qae≤4cqae−b′=4cqg+1,2N_{b'}q^{a_e} \le4c q^{a_e-b'} = 4c q^{g+1},

where we used (3.1) and ae=b′+g+1a_e=b'+g+1. Summing over the at most K−1K-1 noninitial windows proves the stated density bound.

For the first window there are no earlier edges to consider. Otherwise, let b′b' again be the endpoint of its predecessor, and suppose xx is stable. For n∈Wen \in W_e and t∈[1,2]t \in[1,2], we have 0<tqn≤2qae0<tq^n\le2q^{a_e}. Hence the segment from xx to x+tqnx+tq^n crosses no boundary of Γb′\Gamma_{b'}, with a possible boundary at xx itself assigned to the cell on its right. It follows that Jb′(x+tqn)=Jb′(x)J_{b'}(x+tq^n)=J_{b'}(x). Every preceding edge ff has bf≤b′b_f\le b', so nesting gives (3.3).

Separating the test points

Earlier keys are now fixed at stable centers. At the resolution attached to the current edge, the center and its translated points instead have distinct keys. This second property holds at every center.

Lemma 3.3 (Separation within one window). Fix an edge ee, a center x∈Rx \in\mathbb{R}, and a scale t∈[1,2]t \in[1,2]. The points

{x}∪{x+tqn:n∈We}\{x\}\cup\{x+tq^n:n\in W_e\}

have pairwise distinct keys under JbeJ_{b_e}. They also have pairwise distinct keys under every JbJ_b with b≥beb\ge b_e. Proof. Write b=beb=b_e. All the displayed points lie in [x,x+2qn0][x,x+2q^{n_0}], an interval of length at most 1/41/4. Their pairwise distances on the circle R/Z\mathbb{R}/\mathbb{Z} therefore equal their ordinary real distances. The distance from xx to any translated point is tqn≥qbtq^n\ge q^b. For n<n′n<n' in WeW_e, the distance between the two translated points is

t(qn−qn′)=tqn(1−qn′−n)≥(1−q)qb.t(q^n-q^{n'})=tq^n(1-q^{n'-n})\ge(1-q)q^b.

On the other hand, (3.1) gives

1Nb≤qbc=(1−q)qb4<(1−q)qb.\frac{1}{N_b}\le\frac{q^b}{c}=\frac{(1-q)q^b}{4}<(1-q)q^b.

Two points with the same periodic key have circular distance less than the cell width 1/Nb1/N_b. Thus all the keys are distinct, including when one of the points is a boundary point. Distinctness persists at finer resolutions because a finer key determines its coarser key.

The random construction can consequently reuse all earlier decisions at a stable center while consulting distinct entries for the points in the current window. We next use this distinction to obtain independent opportunities for a hit.

Random routing and independent tests

Keep the tree, grids, and windows of Section 3, and fix p∈(0,1)p\in(0,1). We construct a random periodic set of expected density pp, routing each point through the tree with one child at each internal vertex designated as the default. When the route of a stable center makes a default choice, the first such vertex supplies many tests for membership of nearby points. We compute the probability of having no default choice and show that, when the tests are available, their conditional failure probability at each fixed scale decays exponentially in the window length. The dependence on qq enters through the grids and separation estimates already established.

The random tables

For each edge e=(P,i)e=(P,i) with i<Mi<M, let

Se:{0,…,Nbe−1}⟶{0,1}S_e:\{0,\ldots,N_{b_e}-1\}\longrightarrow\{0,1\}

be a table of independent fair bits. Child MM is the default child and has no selector table. For each leaf LL, let b(L)b(L) be the window endpoint of its incoming edge, and let

TL:{0,…,Nb(L)−1}⟶{0,1}T_L:\{0,\ldots,N_{b(L)}-1\}\longrightarrow\{0,1\}

be a table of independent Bernoulli-pp bits. All entries of all selector tables SeS_e and terminal tables TLT_L are mutually independent. There are finitely many entries, so they define a finite product probability space Ω\Omega, with probability P\mathbb{P} and expectation E\mathbb{E}. Write A\mathcal{A} for the sigma-field generated by all entries of all selector tables.

Given an outcome and z∈Rz\in\mathbb{R}, route zz from the root as follows. At an internal vertex PP, choose the first child PiP_i, i<Mi<M, whose selector satisfies S(P,i)(Jb(P,i)(z))=1S_{(P,i)}(J_{b_{(P,i)}}(z))=1. If all these values are zero, choose PMP_M. Let L(z)L(z) denote the leaf reached and define

B={z∈R:TL(z)(Jb(L(z))(z))=1}.(4)B=\{z\in\mathbb{R}:T_{L(z)}(J_{b(L(z))}(z))=1\}. \tag*{(4)}

Every key is periodic, and every grid is refined by the finest grid in the construction. Thus each realization of BB is 11-periodic and is a union of finitely many half-open cells per period.

Lemma 4.1 (Mean density). The random set BB in (4) satisfies Eρ(B)=p\mathbb{E}\rho(B)=p.

Proof. For fixed zz, conditioning on AA fixes its leaf and terminal address. The terminal entry at that address still has Bernoulli-pp law, so P(z∈B∣A)=p\mathbb{P}(z\in B\mid A)=p. Integration over one period, interchanged with the finite weighted sum over Ω\Omega, gives

Eρ(B)=∫01P(z∈B) dz=p.\mathbb{E}\rho(B)=\int_{0}^{1}\mathbb{P}(z\in B)\,\mathrm{d}z=p.

Exposing the center and routing local tests

For a fixed center x∈Rx\in\mathbb{R}, expose its addressed entry in every selector table, including tables outside its route. Write

Fx=σ(Se(Jbe(x)):e=(P,i), i<M)⊆A.(5)\mathcal{F}_x=\sigma\bigl(S_e(J_{b_e}(x)):e=(P,i),\ i<M\bigr)\subseteq\mathcal{A}. \tag*{(5)}

An atom ξ\xi of Fx\mathcal{F}_x specifies all these entries and has positive probability. Their addresses are deterministic once xx is fixed. On every atom, the remaining selector entries are therefore independent fair bits, and all terminal entries retain their independent Bernoulli-pp laws.

The exposure determines the entire route of xx. If that route uses a default child, let UU be the first vertex where it does so. Before conditioning on Fx\mathcal{F}_x,

P(the route of x has no default choice)=(1−21−M)d.(6)\mathbb{P}(\text{the route of }x\text{ has no default choice})=(1-2^{1-M})^d. \tag*{(6)}

Indeed, reveal the entries along the route one vertex at a time. At the vertex reached, its M−1M-1 selector entries are independent fair bits, since the preceding choices use only ancestor tables. The conditional probability of a default is 2−(M−1)2^{-(M-1)}. Multiplying the complementary conditional probabilities over the dd decisions proves the formula.

Now fix a stable center xx and an atom ξ\xi on which UU exists. Under this conditioning, UU and its height hh are fixed. Put

r=rh,ei=(U,i)(1≤i<M),yn(t)=x+tqn(t∈[1,2]).r=r_h,\qquad e_i=(U,i)\quad(1\le i<M),\qquad y_n(t)=x+tq^n\quad(t\in[1,2]).

All M−1M-1 selector values at xx on these edges are zero. The windows WeiW_{e_i} will provide (M−1)r(M-1)r possible hits.

For i<Mi<M, let Li(z)L_i(z) be the leaf reached by routing zz starting at the child UiU_i; if this child is a leaf, take Li(z)=UiL_i(z)=U_i. Define the local test

Qi(z)=Sei(Jbei(z)) TLi(z)(JbLi(z)(z)).(7)Q_i(z)=S_{e_i}(J_{b_{e_i}}(z))\,T_{L_i(z)}(J_{b_{L_i(z)}}(z)). \tag*{(7)}

It consults only the selector on eie_i and the tables in its child subtree. The next lemma makes a successful local test a hit in BB.

Lemma 4.2 (Preservation of routing). Fix a stable center xx and an atom ξ\xi of Fx\mathcal{F}_x on which the first default vertex UU exists. For every outcome in ξ\xi, every i<Mi<M, every n∈Wein\in W_{e_i}, and every t∈[1,2]t\in[1,2], the route of yn(t)y_n(t) reaches UU and rejects its children 1,…,i−11,\ldots,i-1. Consequently,

Qi(yn(t))=1⟹yn(t)∈B.Q_i(y_n(t))=1\quad\Longrightarrow\quad y_n(t)\in B.

Proof. At each strict ancestor PP of UU, let aa be the child index chosen by xx. Since UU is its first default vertex, a<Ma < M. The decision at PP reads zeros at indices less than aa and one at aa. All these edges precede eie_i in preorder, so their selector values at yn(t)y_n(t) equal those at xx by (3.3). Applying this observation successively from the root shows that yn(t)y_n(t) reaches UU. At UU, every edge (U,j)(U,j) with j<ij < i also precedes eie_i; its selector at yn(t)y_n(t) is therefore the exposed zero at xx.

If Qi(yn(t))=1Q_i(y_n(t)) = 1, its selector on eie_i is one, so the actual route takes child UiU_i. Its continuation reaches the leaf Li(yn(t))L_i(y_n(t)), whose addressed terminal entry is one. This is exactly the membership condition (4).

The exact failure probability at a fixed scale

We now show that these tests are numerous enough to make a miss unlikely. Their routes may share selector entries, so we first fix all selectors and check that the resulting terminal addresses are distinct. This order of conditioning keeps the dependence of the leaves on the selectors explicit.

Lemma 4.3 (Independent tests). Fix a stable center xx and an atom ξ\xi of Fx\mathcal{F}_x on which the first default vertex UU exists. Let hh be its height and r=rhr = r_h, and define QiQ_i by (7). For every fixed t∈[1,2]t \in[1,2],

P(Qi(yn(t))=0 for all i<M, n∈Wei∣ξ)=(1−p/2)(M−1)r.(8)\mathbb{P}\left(Q_i(y_n(t)) = 0 \text{ for all } i < M,\ n \in W_{e_i} \mid\xi\right) = (1-p/2)^{(M-1)r}. \tag*{(8)}

Proof. On the atom ξ\xi, the index set

I={(i,n):1≤i<M, n∈Wei}\mathcal{I} = \{(i,n) : 1 \le i < M,\ n \in W_{e_i}\}

is fixed and has cardinality (M−1)r(M-1)r. For each pair put Ai,n=Sei(Jbei(yn(t)))A_{i,n} = S_{e_i}(J_{b_{e_i}}(y_n(t))). For fixed ii, Lemma 3.3 gives pairwise distinct keys for xx and the points yn(t)y_n(t), n∈Wein \in W_{e_i}, at resolution beib_{e_i}. Thus the Ai,nA_{i,n} use distinct entries of their table and avoid its entry exposed at xx. Different ii's use different tables. Conditional on ξ\xi, all Ai,nA_{i,n} are therefore independent fair bits.

Next condition on A\mathcal{A}, the sigma-field of all selectors. For each pair, its local leaf Li,n=Li(yn(t))L_{i,n} = L_i(y_n(t)) and terminal address

κi,n=(Li,n,Jb(Li,n)(yn(t)))\kappa_{i,n} = \left(L_{i,n}, J_{b(L_{i,n})}(y_n(t))\right)

are fixed. These addresses are distinct. If two child indices differ, the leaves lie in disjoint child subtrees of UU, so their tables differ. If the child indices agree but the leaves differ, the tables again differ. Finally, suppose two different indices n,n′n,n' below the same child select the same leaf LL. Its incoming edge is either eie_i itself or a later edge in that child subtree, so b(L)≥beib(L) \ge b_{e_i}. The two points have different keys at resolution beib_{e_i}, and nesting preserves this distinction at resolution b(L)b(L). Their terminal addresses are distinct in this case as well.

Consequently, for each realization of the selectors, the terminal entries at all addresses κi,n\kappa_{i,n} are independent Bernoulli-pp variables. The pairs with Ai,n=0A_{i,n}=0 fail already; each remaining pair fails precisely when its terminal bit is zero. Hence, on ξ\xi,

P(Qi(yn(t))=0 for all (i,n)∈I∣A)=(1−p)∑(i,n)∈IAi,n.\mathbb{P}\left(Q_i(y_n(t)) = 0 \text{ for all } (i,n) \in\mathcal{I} \mid\mathcal{A}\right) = (1-p)^{\sum_{(i,n)\in\mathcal{I} A_{i,n}}.}

Since Fx⊆A\mathcal{F}_x \subseteq\mathcal{A}, averaging over the selectors conditional on ξ\xi gives

P(Qi(yn(t))=0 for all (i,n)∈I∣ξ)=E[(1−p)∑(i,n)∈IAi,n∣ξ]=∏(i,n)∈I(12+1−p2)=(1−p/2)(M−1)r.\begin{aligned} \mathbb{P}\left(Q_i(y_n(t)) = 0 \text{ for all } (i,n) \in\mathcal{I} \mid\xi\right) &= \mathbb{E}\left[(1-p)^{\sum_{(i,n)\in\mathcal{I} A_{i,n}}} \mid\xi\right] \\ &= \prod_{(i,n)\in\mathcal{I}}\left(\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1-p}{2}\right) = (1-p/2)^{(M-1)r}. \end{aligned}

The estimate holds for every center-exposure atom admitting a default and every scale fixed on that atom. Section 5 will use the child-subtree endpoints bei∗b_{e_i}^* to select finitely many such scales representing all t∈[1,2]t \in[1,2]. Together with (6) and Lemma 4.1, this will control misses while keeping the expected density small.

All normalized scales and all centers

The independent tests of Section 4 control a fixed scale at a fixed stable center. We first make this estimate simultaneous over t∈[1,2]t \in[1,2], using only the grids that determine the local tests. We then choose the construction parameters and cover the remaining centers by a small open set. The finite boundary-representative argument has precedents in [2] and [11].

Lemma 5.1 (Conditional control of all normalized scales). Fix p∈(0,1)p \in(0,1) and the construction parameters M,d,g,r0M,d,g,r_0 of Sections 3 and 4. Let x∈Sx \in S be a stable center, and let ξ\xi be an atom of the center-exposure field FxF_x on which the route of xx uses a default edge. If its first default occurs at a vertex UU of height hh, put r=rhr=r_h and

DM,q(r)=4+2(M−1)r(1+2cq−2r).D_{M,q}(r)=4+2(M-1)r(1+2cq^{-2r}).

Then

P(∃t∈[1,2] ∀n∈N:x+tqn∉B∣ξ)≤DM,q(r)e−p(M−1)r/2.(9)\mathbb{P}\left(\exists t \in[1,2]\ \forall n \in\mathcal{N}: x+tq^n \notin B \mid\xi\right)\le D_{M,q}(r)e^{-p(M-1)r/2}. \tag*{(9)}

Proof. On the atom ξ\xi, the vertex UU and its outgoing edges ei=(U,i)e_i=(U,i), 1≤i<M1 \le i < M, are fixed. Recall that Qi(z)Q_i(z) tests the selector on eie_i and terminal membership after routing from UiU_i. Every table used by this test belongs to eie_i or the subtree below it. By nesting of the grids, for every realization of the tables, Qi(z)Q_i(z) is determined by the single key Jbei∗(z)J_{b_{e_i}^*}(z).

For each i<Mi<M and n∈Wein \in W_{e_i}, record the values of t∈[1,2]t \in[1,2] for which yn(t)=x+tqny_n(t)=x+tq^n lies on the lattice Γbei∗\Gamma_{b_{e_i}^*}. The segment traversed by yny_n has length qnq^n, so the number of recorded values is at most

1+qnNbei∗≤1+2cq−2r.1+q^nN_{b_{e_i}^*}\le1+2cq^{-2r}.

Here we used (3.1) and the block-span bound bei∗−aei+1≤2rb_{e_i}^*-a_{e_i}+1\le2r from Lemma 3.1.

Combine these lists, add 1 and 2, and retain the distinct values in increasing order. Let Tx,ξ\mathcal{T}_{x,\xi} consist of these values together with one midpoint between each consecutive pair. There are (M−1)r(M-1)r pairs (i,n)(i,n), and hence

∣Tx,ξ∣≤DM,q(r).|\mathcal{T}_{x,\xi}|\le D_{M,q}(r).

This set depends only on xx, the deterministic windows and grids, and the vertex UU determined by ξ\xi; it is fixed before any remaining table entries are revealed. For every realization of those entries, the entire vector

(Qi(yn(t)):i<M, n∈Wei)\left(Q_i(y_n(t)) : i<M,\ n\in W_{e_i}\right)

is constant on each open interval between consecutive recorded values. Every boundary value is represented separately, so the half-open cell convention causes no loss at a boundary or at an endpoint of [1,2][1,2].

If some tt misses BB at all indices in N\mathcal{N}, Lemma 4.2 implies that all these local tests fail at tt. They therefore also fail at some t′∈Tx,ξt' \in\mathcal{T}_{x,\xi}. Each such t′t' is a fixed real number under the conditioning on ξ\xi, so Lemma 4.3 applies to it. Taking a union bound and using (8) gives

P(∃t∈[1,2] ∀n∈N:x+tqn∉B∣ξ)≤∣Tx,ξ∣(1−p/2)(M−1)r,\mathbb{P}\left(\exists t \in[1,2]\ \forall n \in\mathcal{N}: x+tq^n\notin B \mid\xi\right)\le|\mathcal{T}_{x,\xi}|(1-p/2)^{(M-1)r},

which proves (9).

The bound uses the last grid in each edge and descendant block. Its resolution is controlled by that edge’s window length through (3.2). Using the finest grid of the whole construction would discard this control and would not give (5.1).

Proof of Proposition 2.1. Fix p∈(0,1)p \in(0,1). We now specify the parameters that were left arbitrary in the preceding construction. Choose an integer M≥2M \ge2 such that

α:=p(M−1)2>2log⁡(1/q).(10)\alpha:= \frac{p(M-1)}{2} > 2\log(1/q). \tag*{(10)}

Next choose an integer d≥1d \ge1 satisfying

(1−21−M)d<p.(1-2^{1-M})^d < p.

For the resulting tree, let KK be its number of edges and choose an integer g≥1g \ge1 such that

4Kcqg+1<p.4Kcq^{g+1} < p.

Finally, by (10),

DM,q(r)e−αr=O(re−(α−2log⁡(1/q))r)⟶0.D_{M,q}(r)e^{-\alpha r} = O\left(re^{-(\alpha-2\log(1/q))r}\right) \longrightarrow0.

Thus there is an integer r∗≥1r_* \ge1 such that

DM,q(r)e−p(M−1)r/2<pfor every integer r≥r∗.D_{M,q}(r)e^{-p(M-1)r/2} < p \qquad\text{for every integer } r \ge r_*.

Construct the windows with r0=r∗r_0=r_* and the chosen M,d,gM,d,g, and form the random set BB of Section 4.

Fix any stable center xx. By (6), the probability that its route has no default is less than pp. On each atom of Fx\mathcal{F}_x for which a default occurs, Lemma 5.1 and (5.5) bound the conditional probability of a miss at some normalized scale by pp, since every rh≥r∗r_h \ge r_*. Summing over the center-exposure atoms yields

P(∃t∈[1,2] ∀n∈N:x+tqn∉B)≤2p(x∈S).(11)\mathbb{P}\left(\exists t \in[1,2]\ \forall n \in\mathbb{N}: x+tq^n \notin B\right) \le2p \qquad(x \in S). \tag*{(11)}

The probability space is finite, so this event is measurable even though its definition quantifies over all t∈[1,2]t \in[1,2].

It remains to turn this estimate at each center into a set that works at every center. Open-neighborhood repair for null sequences is explicit in [14]; see also [2]. We implement it with open neighborhoods, which contain sufficiently late translated points because tqn→0tq^n \to0. For each table outcome, enlarge the finitely many selected cells per period to an open periodic set B+⊇BB^+ \supseteq B with

ρ(B+)≤ρ(B)+p.\rho(B^+) \le\rho(B)+p.

For that outcome define the set of centers still missed by the finite collection of indices:

R={x∈R:∃t∈[1,2] ∀n∈N, x+tqn∉B+}.(12)R=\left\{x\in\mathbb{R}:\exists t\in[1,2]\ \forall n\in\mathbb{N},\ x+tq^n\notin B^+\right\}. \tag*{(12)}

This is a closed periodic set. Indeed, on the circle R/Z\mathbb{R}/\mathbb{Z} it is the projection of the closed set

{(x,t)∈(R/Z)×[1,2]:x+tqn∉B+ for all n∈N}.\left\{(x,t)\in(\mathbb{R}/\mathbb{Z})\times[1,2]:x+tq^n\notin B^+\ \text{for all }n\in\mathbb{N}\right\}.

in a compact product. In particular, its density is defined.

Since B⊆B+B \subseteq B^{+}, membership of a fixed stable center in RR implies the event in (11). Lemma 3.2 and the choice of gg give ρ(R∖S)<p\rho(R \setminus S) < p. Integrating the probability bound over one period therefore gives

Eρ(R)=∫01P(x∈R) dx≤2pρ(S)+ρ(R∖S)≤3p.\mathbb{E}_{\rho}(R) = \int_{0}^{1} \mathbb{P}(x \in R)\,dx \leq2p\rho(S) + \rho(R \setminus S) \leq3p.

Also Eρ(B+)≤2p\mathbb{E}_{\rho}(B^{+}) \leq2p by Lemma 4.1. Choose a table outcome for which

ρ(B+)+ρ(R)≤5p.\rho(B^{+}) + \rho(R) \leq5p.

Outer regularity on the circle supplies an open periodic set V⊇RV \supseteq R with ρ(V)≤ρ(R)+p\rho(V) \leq\rho(R) + p. Then H=B+∪VH = B^{+} \cup V is open and periodic, and

ρ(H)≤ρ(B+)+ρ(R)+p≤6p.\rho(H) \leq\rho(B^{+}) + \rho(R) + p \leq6p.

To verify the hitting property, fix x∈Rx \in\mathbb{R} and t∈[1,2]t \in[1,2]. If x∉Rx \notin R, the definition of RR gives an index n∈Nn \in\mathbb{N} with x+tqn∈B+⊆Hx + tq^{n} \in B^{+} \subseteq H. If x∈Rx \in R, then x∈Vx \in V and VV is open, so x+tqn∈V⊆Hx + tq^{n} \in V \subseteq H for all sufficiently large nn because tqn→0tq^{n} \to0. These latter indices need not lie in N\mathbb{N}; the required conclusion allows every n≥1n \geq1. Thus every center and every normalized scale has a hit, proving the proposition. □\square

References

  1. [1]Jean Bourgain. Construction of sets of positive measure not containing an affine image of a given infinite structure. Israel Journal of Mathematics, 60(3):333–344, 1987.DOI
  2. [2]Miroslav Chlebík. On the Erdős similarity problem, 2015. Preprint, arXiv:1512.05607v1, 17 December 2015.
  3. [3]Angel D. Cruz, Chun-Kit Lai, and Malabika Pramanik. Large sets avoiding affine copies of infinite sequences. Real Analysis Exchange, 48(2):251–270, 2023. Preprint: arXiv:2204.12720v1.arxiv.org/abs/2204.12720
  4. [4]S. J. Eigen. Putting convergent sequences into measurable sets. Studia Scientiarum Mathematicarum Hungarica, 20(1–4):411–412, 1985.
  5. [5]Paul Erdős. Problems. Mathematica Balkanica, 4:203–204, 1974. Problem 4.33.7*.
  6. [6]K. J. Falconer. On a problem of Erdős on sequences and measurable sets. Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society, 90(1):77–78, 1984.
  7. [7]De-Jun Feng, Chun-Kit Lai, and Ying Xiong. Erdős similarity problem via bi-Lipschitz embedding. International Mathematics Research Notices, 2024(17):12327–12342, 2024. Preprint: arXiv:2312.01319v1.
  8. [8]Paul D. Humke and Miklós Laczkovich. A visit to the Erdős problem. Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society, 126(3):819–822, 1998.
  9. [9]A. Iosevich, N. Kulkarni, N. Mora Cuéllar, I. Rojas Aravena, and A. Yavicoli. The Erdős similarity conjecture and Rajchman measures, 2026. Preprint, arXiv:2609.04456v1, 3 September 2026.
  10. [10]Mihail N. Kolountzakis. Infinite patterns that can be avoided by measure. Bulletin of the London Mathematical Society, 29(4):415–424, 1997.DOI
  11. [11]Mihail N. Kolountzakis and Effie Papageorgiou. Large sets containing no copies of a given infinite sequence. Analysis & PDE, 18(1):93–108, 2025. Preprint: arXiv:2208.02637v2.DOI
  12. [12]N. Mora Cuellar, A. Iosevich, N. Kulkarni, I. Rojas Aravena, and A. Yavicoli. The Erdős similarity conjecture for two-fold sumsets with a geometric summand, 2026. Preprint, arXiv:2607.03584v2, 1 August 2026.
  13. [13]David Solymosi. Patterns in sparse sets. Summer NSERC USRA report, University of British Columbia, 2011. Research report.
  14. [14]Foster Tom. Sets avoiding images of a given sequence. Summer NSERC USRA report, University of British Columbia, 2015. Research report.

Paper details

Contents